Obamas fataler Fatalismus im Nahen Osten

In Afghanistan, he set a timetable for troop withdrawal, untethered to conditions. In Libya, he bombed the Gaddafi regime out of power but did not stay to help a new government get on its feet. In Iraq, he overrode his civilian and military advisers and declined to keep in the country the 15,000 or 20,000  troops that might have helped preserve the stability the U.S. surge had helped achieve. (…)

I understand why Obama and so many other Americans reject persistent engagement, often derisively called nation-building. It is difficult, and the United States often does it badly and sometimes doesn’t succeed; Americans can’t impose democracy; we often end up doing work that we wish the locals or their neighbors would do. Obama is right, too, that other regions, such as the Pacific, are more important to the global economy and more central to U.S. strategy.

But against all that wisdom stands one stubborn fact, again proved by Obama’s re-escalation: The United States does not have a choice. The unraveling doesn’t stay put, but spreads to Syria and Paris and Brussels and the skies over the Mediterranean and, eventually, the United States. Under conditions far more difficult than they might have been, the president finds himself unleashing bombers over Syria and dispatching soldiers into Iraq. […]

(Fred Hiatt in der Washington Post: „Obama’s fatal fatalism in the Middle East“)

Schreiben Sie einen Kommentar

Schreiben Sie einen Kommentar

Sie müssen angemeldet sein, um einen Kommentar abzugeben.